and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

Show Tags

18 Jan 2010, 08:20

6

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

46%(02:49) correct
54%(02:09) wrong based on 143 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.If the estimates above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?(A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations.(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.(D) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995.(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.
_________________

Show Tags

Show Tags

18 Jan 2010, 11:23

2

This post receivedKUDOS

The question asks for the statement that CAN be supported by the passage.

Note that "greatest increase" means largest in absolute number, not largest percentage increase. We also know that the share of employees in low-paying service jobs will not increase, while the share of the high-paying service employees will rise.

A) If in 1982 there were a total of 100M emplyees and 50M worked in low-paying service jobs and 1M in high-paying service jobs, while in 1995 there were 200M employees and 100M worked in low-paying service jobs and 10M in high-paying service jobs, the absolute increase in low-paying service employees would be 100M abeit with the same share of the total epmloyees, while the absolute increase in high-paying service jobs would be only 9M, but with a tenfold increase in the share of the total eployees. If the number of low-paying workers in 1982 were lower than the number of high-paying workers, then an increase in the total share in the latter would lead to an increase in absolute terms larger than the one attributable to low-paying jobs. Right answer.

B) If it were true, it would contraddict the passage. Wrong answer.

C) Nothing is said about nonservice occupations. Wrong answer.

D) Nothing is said about transfers between groups. Wrong answer.

E) Since low-paying occupations will maintain their share, the rate of growth must be the same as the one of the rate of employment. Wrong answer.

Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Mar 2012, 06:44

1

This post receivedKUDOS

I thought only D is properly explaining the paradox presented. how?

Premise - greatest increase in the number of ppl employed will be in low-paying service occupation yet the share of total employment will not increase whereas that of high-paying service occupation will increase.

Clearly, we needed the low-paying service occupation employees to move into high-paying service occupation.

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.If the estimates above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?(A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations. Irrelevant! The question concerns share of total and not just the number of employee.(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations. Irrelevant! The question concerns share of total and not just the number of employee.(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982. - Doesn't emplain the paradox presented(D) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995. - This is exactly what we needed to explain paradox.(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995. then why is the share low?_________________

--Syed" Some are desperate for success, and therefore destined for it."

Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Apr 2012, 05:18

I think the answer must be B

A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations. No data provided to support this. Only data mentioned for period between 1982 and 1995(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations. - Correct answer. If high paying service occupations has higher share, it must be concluded that there are more high paying service jobs(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982. - No data to support this(D) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995. - This cannot be assumed. Entirely new set of people may join all the high paying service occupations.(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995. - Again, not supported by data. overall rate of employment is not given.

Show Tags

You'll need to visualize your answer for this one.You can identify this question as the same as an "inference" question - some conclusion is stated and we need information in the passage to support it.

Think of the pie to get this one.

"Low" will NOT increase its share of total employment. So let's say that it's share of the pie stays the same, but the overall pie gets bigger.

So, "Low" might have 15% market share. And in 1995, it STILL has 15%...though the overall pie got bigger.

"High" WILL increase its share of total employment. It can either have more or less than the 15% market share that "Low" has.

1) If <15%, let's say 5%. If 5% and "High" increased to 8%, that gain CAN be less than the gain that LOW experiences. While LOW's % market share stays the same, there is an increase in the overall pie and so LOW will increase. HIGH staying at 5% will also increase but it will increase a very small amount. Its share % can increase to 8%, and the total quantity increased can still be smaller than LOW's increase. See example below.

2) If >15%, let's say 25%. If 25% and "High" increased to 35%, that gain is going to be BIGGER than LOW's gain....conflicts with information in the passage

Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Nov 2013, 06:21

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Apr 2014, 06:04

jlgdr wrote:

babylonGMAT wrote:

the tricky part of this question is it assuming at least one other category exists besides H/L Paying category.thinking like this will make this question quite easy. otherwise it's a dead end.

Could you PLEASE elaborate more on this? What's the logic here?

Cheers!J

Simple. The years is 1982.

Let us assume there are only 100 people working. 50 people are working in low paying jobs and 25 people in high paying jobs.That means they form a 25% of the workforce.

The year is 1995The workforce has doubled. As per the condition the share of the pi of the low paying jobs is still 1/4 so there will be 50 people in low paying jobs. Now, less that 25 people joined high paying jobs; as the conditions states max. no. joined in low payin jobs. Assume 20 people join. That takes their total share to 22.5%.

All this is in allignment with the premise.

Now if we were tweak the raitios such that more people were in high paying jobs thn low paying jobs, everything would fall apart.

As far as the remaning options are considered they can be eliminated by using above ratios.

Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 May 2014, 10:48

I think I went bald on this one :D

Could get this one after a fair bit of thoughtC, D, and E are out straight away for we don't have enough info to support those choices

the race is between A and B and I chose B initially, the correct answer seems to be A

My reasoning:

1982: 100 employees, low paying = 25, high paying = 50, others = 25 (note: it is not mentioned that high paying and low paying are the only categories)so share of low paying = 25 / 100 = 25%1995: 200 employees, so low paying must be = 50 in order to maintain the 25% share (50/200)Now this would mean that the absolute increase in low paying is 50 - 25 = 25 and it is given that no other category had such an absolute increase.So, the absolute increase in high paying would be <25 ==> in 1995 the high paying would be between 50 and 74, let it be max = 74. Now if you look at the other category it has to increase substantially above absolute increase of 25 in order for the sum to be 200ie. 50 + 74 + 76 but that increase would contradict the information provided. Hence B is wrong

Absolute increase in low paying from 1982 to 1995 = 100 - 50 = 50The other categories must have absolute increase of less than 50. This is only true if in 1982 low paying employees > no of high paying employees.

Try it with other set of numbers while practicing this one. Hope it helps!
_________________

Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2015, 03:35

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.